Ethics
Q1. Explain how utilitarian might prove a defence for Roche and how a rights-based ethic might instead condemn Roche’s drug trails in China.
A. According to the Utilitarian Ethics point of view that support the benefits of greater number of people compare to the loss of fewer people or supports the idea that gives happiness to the majority. As far as this case is considered utilitarian does support Roche’s drug tests on transplant patient because the test helps the company to create medicines like CellCept which later helps thousands of transplant patients to biologically adjust with the new organ support. It also justifies that fewer people suffers from donating organs than people who get life support by the use of other people’s organs, it also consider that organ’s collected from executed prisoner from china is semi-ethical because the if they don’t use the organs it will eventually go wasted in the grave, that could have saved someone’s life,
B.
but on the other hand Right-Based Ethic does not agree with utilitarian view, as Right-based ethic highly emphasise on the importance of individual human rights than the overall outcome, it is not ruled by maximizing interest satisfaction, but by equalizing rights of individual protection (Clarifying the Avenues for Ethical Analysis, Author Kenneth E. Goodpaster Ref 3*). According to the Right-based ethics, the prisoner were not given to freedom of choice of whether to donate or not to donate their organs, even if they were given the choice, it can still be considered as a forceful decision, one good thing about right-based ethics is that it questions about who takes the monetary benefits on the sale of organs after the prisoners are executed. Right-based ethics emphasis on the importance of prisoner’s respect and that shouldn’t be threaten like animals but as humans.
Q2. Is it ethical for Roche to continue testing CallCept on its Chines transplant patients?
A. The more important question than Roche’s ethical
A. According to the Utilitarian Ethics point of view that support the benefits of greater number of people compare to the loss of fewer people or supports the idea that gives happiness to the majority. As far as this case is considered utilitarian does support Roche’s drug tests on transplant patient because the test helps the company to create medicines like CellCept which later helps thousands of transplant patients to biologically adjust with the new organ support. It also justifies that fewer people suffers from donating organs than people who get life support by the use of other people’s organs, it also consider that organ’s collected from executed prisoner from china is semi-ethical because the if they don’t use the organs it will eventually go wasted in the grave, that could have saved someone’s life,
B.
but on the other hand Right-Based Ethic does not agree with utilitarian view, as Right-based ethic highly emphasise on the importance of individual human rights than the overall outcome, it is not ruled by maximizing interest satisfaction, but by equalizing rights of individual protection (Clarifying the Avenues for Ethical Analysis, Author Kenneth E. Goodpaster Ref 3*). According to the Right-based ethics, the prisoner were not given to freedom of choice of whether to donate or not to donate their organs, even if they were given the choice, it can still be considered as a forceful decision, one good thing about right-based ethics is that it questions about who takes the monetary benefits on the sale of organs after the prisoners are executed. Right-based ethics emphasis on the importance of prisoner’s respect and that shouldn’t be threaten like animals but as humans.
Q2. Is it ethical for Roche to continue testing CallCept on its Chines transplant patients?
A. The more important question than Roche’s ethical